[Fiware-pcc] [Fiware-wpa] Report on conversation with our PO on status of the FI-WARE project

[Fasse, Axel]

Dera Juanjo,



thank you very much for your clarification.

I think it would be a good idea to make some comments, that are already mentioned before in the different mails with respect to the PCC Call and which were mentioned again within the PDF File with my comments to the PCC minutes. So far as I understand your mail, it seems to me, as if you have not taken into account my remarks during the call with our PO.

Because of that, I would like to make my comments again.



I have added my comments directly into your mail.





Best regards,

   Axel



-----Original Message-----
From: fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpa-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro
Sent: Dienstag, 24. Juli 2012 01:14
To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: [Fiware-wpa] Report on conversation with our PO on status of the FI-WARE project



Hi all,



    I have had a confcall with our PO where we have addressed a number

of important issues and have discussed about general status of the

project and the program.   This email is trying to share with you

information about what has been discussed.



   Don't hesitate to share this information with members of your

respective chapter/WP teams.



   As I have already reported in a previous mail, the first thing we

discussed had to do with how to manage deliverables linked to software

and Installation/Administration Guides marked as PP.   I hope this

solves major concerns raised by some of the partners.



Yes, that's the right way, that's fine for us.



   Second point that was addressed had to do with measurements defined

to avoid further delays in meeting defined deadlines.   PO is backing us

on the decision taken and welcome them.   Even in the case that TID were

not legally able to reject submission of financial/cost statements

(something he doubts because he believes it can), he believes that TID

not only can but must identify financial/costs reports TID believes are

not in line with what is the actual work carried out and the EC would

take decisions accordingly.    Nevertheless, I shared with the PO that

we believe that all partners will do their best to comply with the

defined milestones not just to avoid implementation of the defined

measurements but for the sake of the project.   I believe that the PO

feels confident about the status but let's try not to let him down.



>From the PO's point of view, I can understand that he likes your proposal.

But this is actually not compatible with the existing legal contracts. I would suggest to propose another way that is compliant to all of the legal contracts and that is formally agreed by all partners. If you - as the coordinator - have finished the proposal we should explain the existing problem to the PO and try to convince him about our new way to take care about the timeline and the quality of the deliverables





   I reported about the status of the Testbed and the contingency plan

that we put in place.   He seemed to be fine with that.



>From my point of view some of the details are missing. I would suggest to avoid any over-selling.





   I asked him about the 1st year FI-WARE Review Report and he told me

that we shouldn't expect this earlier than mid August.    I explained

Arian our plans regarding resubmission of the Technical Roadmap (in line

with what we proposed during the 1st year FI-WARE Review meeting) and he

seemed to be fine with them.    He confirmed the relevance of the white

paper describing the encompassing usage of GEs.   I already announced

him that it would be rather difficult to get it finished by the end of

July because we are all so busy. It seemed that his major concern was to

to make sure it be ready before an Information Day regarding the phase 2

of the FI-PPP that the EC has planned by August 30 in Brussels.



   I reported also that we were working hard on the deliverable

regarding 3rd party innovation enablement and trying to get it ready by

end of July or, if not, just a few days later.   He seemed to be happy

with that.



   Regarding results of the 1st Open Call, Arian expects that the next

step will be that we elaborate an amendment of the DoW which

incorporates the new partners and their description of work. However, we

agreed that such DoW amendment should try to go after the one where we

will try to incorporate all pending changes which were summarized and

agreed during the last PCC meetings.



That's a very good approach.





   He was ok with the planning of the second Open Call but would like to

see the third Open Call later than what we proposed (January next year

instead of end of October) in order to allow incorporation of topics

that may be demanded by UC trials selected in phase 2 (hearings are

planned to end beginning of December this year).    I proposed him the

possibility to formulate the 2nd Open Call so that it may consider

topics with different closing dates for final publication of Epics and

different submission deadlines.   This would allow to incorporate topics

like Security in this 2nd Open Call.   Arian believes this may be

feasible.   Definitively, I will propose discussing this during the

confcall of the FI-PPP AB that will take place this week.



   I think this was all.   I'm happy to respond any question that you

may have.



   Best regards,



-- Juanjo



-------------

Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital

website: www.tid.es<http://www.tid.es>

email: jhierro at tid.es<mailto:jhierro at tid.es>

twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro



FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Chief Architect



You can follow FI-WARE at:

   website:  http://www.fi-ware.eu

   facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242

   twitter:  http://twitter.com/FIware

   linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932





________________________________



Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.

This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at.

http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx

_______________________________________________

Fiware-wpa mailing list

Fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:Fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu>

http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-pcc/attachments/20120724/4326849f/attachment.html>